in brief The National Broadband Network Company this morning issued a request for proposals for consultancy services from the private sector to support its Strategic Review into the future of the NBN under the new Coalition Government.
“The invitation has been extended to a select number of consultants,” the company said in a statement today. “The results of the tender will be announced in the coming week.”
According to NBN Co, the Strategic Review is being led by NBN Co’s Board and executive management. Its primary objective is to evaluate both the: Current NBN operational and financial performance; as well as the timing, financials and product offers under alternative models of delivering very fast broadband to homes and businesses across Australia.
NBN Co’s Executive Chair, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, said: “The Strategic Review is a comprehensive exercise led by NBN Co to determine how best to provide access to very fast broadband to all Australians as soon, as cost-effectively, and as affordably as possible. While the review is underway, construction of the network continues.”
The Strategic Review is due to be submitted to the company’s shareholder ministers, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, in early December. The document will form a key input into the company’s 2014-17 Corporate Plan, which is due to be delivered to the Government in the first half of next year.
Gee, McKinsey/KPMG must be tempted to bid and offer their services…. but it would be kind of awkward if their new NBN study draws and makes contradictory conclusions and recommendations to their earlier study tailored for Rudd… ;)
I doubt it. It’s not like the review will be much work anyway. They just have to make up some prose to support the conclusion Turnbull wants.
No doubt pro Labor NBN supporters will say the result is rigged unless the strategic review comes out and states unequivocally to keep the Labor planned rollout going 100%.
Or perhaps those that support Liberals NBN will call foul if it doesn’t support their system.
I doubt any review will also consider the loss made by VDSL equipment and power requirements. I say loss made by VDSL because the equipment will have to be upgraded within 15 years, by which time there is no way the money spent on it will pay itself off. So there is a loss, because you can’t sell equipment to the rest of the world when they’ve already replaced it. It’s junk.
Having a modern computer in Australia is like giving everyone a Ferrari and then asking them to drive on pothole filled dirt roads.
No, I think that what will determine whether pro FTTH people support the review will be based on many things.
1) The terms of reference.
2) Who is doing the review.
3) And most importantly, does the review address the major areas of concern of those supporting FTTH now, the future costs.
@ Fibroid…
So as I said previously and it threw you into total confusion, where you said umm what, twice… until Observer explained it to you…
You are simply suggesting a role reversal.
Do as the node nerds have done from day one with the real NBN… just not consider facts and bag any and every report (or even positive input from the likes of Google, Vint Cerf etc) as being rigged/biased, if it doesn’t fit the preferred predetermined (in their case – political) outcome?
Being so, how about being a good chap and offering us fact finders, serious apolitical commenters and those not familiar with disingenuous nitpicking, a few FUD tips?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/communications-ministers-friend-gets-lead-role-at-nbn-co/story-e6frgaif-1226741994106
If I was from the old NBN detractors always negative train of thought, I might be suggesting that it seems as though the right people are being chosen to get the right result… but then I’m not :)
And yes, from the Australian… so it must be right (pun intended).
There’s a lot of “Independent consultant” going on, Malcolm could have saved millions using the PC…
oooh… i’m sure Malcolm would have used the PC.. if Conroy hadn’t deviously injected his Head of Dept in charge of Labor NBN as Head of PC just prior to getting kicked out of office.
So no one in the PC should be allowed to do reviews on anything they’ve worked at? Seems counter productive to disallow people with expertise in a particular field to do reviews on that field, doesn’t it?
Indeed Tinman,
Using such strange logic, regarding prior involvements, shouldn’t Ziggy be excluded from NBNCo?
err.. must be a slow Sunday… you don’t think it’s awkward for PC staff to critically review and examine the shortcomings of Labor NBN policy which their new big boss Chairman had a leading hand in crafting and implementing prior to being cynically parachuted into PC by Conroy…. okaaaaaaay….
So you think the PC is now so biased they shouldn’t be allowed to look at it, but it’s fine for a friend of Malcolm’s to do it?
Now theres a “okaaaaaaay”….
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-us/media/news/nbn-co-strategic-review.html
> The Strategic Review is being led by NBN Co’s Board and executive management. Its primary objective is to evaluate both the:
> * Current NBN operational and financial performance; and the
> * Timing, financials and product offers under alternative models of delivering very fast broadband to homes and businesses across Australia
What fun terms of reference these are. Ugh. If you set the terms of reference to basically only to find the answer to the simplistic question “How can we quickly build something cheaply that offers a good enough™ product” and that’s the focus, then things are looking pretty grim.
Election slogan: “Fast. Affordable. Sooner.”
Objective for strategic review: “Timing, financials and product offers under alternative models of delivering very fast broadband”
You’d think that government policy would have more nuance than mindless election slogans, but here we are, aren’t we?
I know you would prefer it if the review didn’t look at alternatives at all but that’s not what the Coalition NBN policy is about and what helped them win Government.
In any full review you would expect at a minimum that the existing NBN project is reviewed and viable alternatives looked at, what did you expect the terms of reference of the Coalition NBN review everyone knew was coming well before the election to be?
The review will show VDSL2 to be cheaper, to be deliverable sooner (if you throw enough money at Telstra) and that it could theoretically deliver something like the download speeds the coalition thinks.
There’s no point to this aspect of the “strategic review” because the result is already obvious. Why even spend money doing it other than to have a rubber stamp on it?
Nothing about total cost of ownership, nothing about social benefits, nothing about what happens after delivering it, nothing about the impact on ISPs, nothing about the quality of the copper beyond the time frame, nothing about the issues surrounding Telstra, it’s basically just a question of how much money do we roughly need to throw at Alcatel and Telstra and that’s it. Nothing about a look internationally either. Don’t look at what’s happening in China or Sweden or the US or New Zealand or Russia.
Tell me, how will this strategic review or anything delivered following it leave Australia in a substantially better position in international comparison after a peak funding of $30 billion in ten years’ time? Oh, right. That’s too far to look ahead.
Or will it be a comparatively worse position? Ookla has as its average upload speed 6.44 Mbps, in 2013. The promise by the coalition on upload speeds is 4-6 Mbps by 2019, but expect that to be sacrificed if there’s any problems with accomplishing the required download speeds. But none of that matters in this strategic review. Just ignore it is the message.
A review would be great, and honest review. A rigged review is a farce. I look forward to reading the review. Let’s hope it is a fair review. Fair isn’t based on the outcome. If it makes a good case for FTTN and the figures are accurate, I’ll be happy to go with it. If it’s a rigged review, full of fudge numbers, like the Coalition plan, I won’t be happy.
We are open to ‘rational’ alternatives, but FttN is simply not up to it… period.
Regardless, I find it quite comical (or should I say sickening) when I continually read from those, unlike those of us here who simply want the best plan regardless of which political party delivers it… who, because they totally abhor the Labor party, as a consequence abhor the real NBN and as they love the Coalition, therefore love FttN…
Yes, the very same FttN their own heroes referred to as fraudband in 2007 and these same faithful messengers, who would have vehemently opposed it back then too (being Labor policy) now fully support it…
*rolls eyes*
Hang on, wasn’t Malcolm Turnbull quite clear that he wanted the review done by the management of NBN Co, NOT consultants — so that NBN Co would own the outcome? Perhaps the sheer scale of the task of evaluating an absolutely massive and complex project like the NBN in 60 days has dawned upon him. It’s a thankless task for whatever consultant takes it on.. no matter how hard they try they won’t be able to do a proper review in (now) less than 60 days.
Two weeks ago:
> And the reason the company should undertake this is because we want them to own it. See, you can – there’s any number of consulting firms you can hire, and the NBN Co’s hired most of them over the last four years, but you can hire a consulting firm, they’ll come in and write a report. But the directors, the executives may have no sense of ownership of it. They may – it’s just something that descended from outside.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/announcement-of-new-nbn-board-and-launch-of-nbn-strategic-review
Pretty much the only explanation for the backflip, I figure is that maybe he feels that he didn’t get the real facts and that NBN Co wasn’t going to produce the result he wanted. I’m not really sure about the justification of the scope being too large. Here’s what he said:
> What I have said to the company is I just want the plain unvarnished facts. We do not want spin. We do not want the company to tell us what they think we might want to hear. We want to know what the real facts are. And then armed with those facts, then we can make decisions about the future of the project and Australians will see the actual factual context in which we’re making them. That is terrifically important.
Just spitballing here, but what are the legal ramifications for members of the board for misdirecting their shareholder. If Ziggy doesn’t believe he can make a clear and cut case for FTTN over FTTH after the rollout has already commenced, might it be that outsourcing such a report is offloading the risk of future action against the present board of NBNco?
This governments had a few back flips since getting in, it probably has more to do with how “anti” they were in opposition and then discovering tactics like that don’t work when you actually have to build and run things.
And Ziggy saying “While the review is underway, construction of the network continues.” is only to be expected, they’ll need the fibre regardless of it it’s all the way to a house, or stops 400m from it at a node…
I have not noticed any backflips at all, the Coalition said existing build contracts would be honored and they are, the Coalition said a strategic review will take place if they get elected and it will be.
What’s amazing is that after three massive rollout downgrades in the short space of three years and adjustments to required funding upwards as result of that many here think that the rollout still doesn’t require any sort of review.
If Labor got back in there still should have been a full review of the NBN, but Labor certainly wasn’t going to do it to their darling multi billion dollar project no matter how far behind or what extra funding it sucked up in the next three years, and by 2016 it would have been locked into completion regardless of delays or cost.
Without doubt this NBN review is definitely one of the benefits of Labor losing Government.
Why do you keep paraphrasing responses like this?
I don’t have a problem with the review. Few here do. And there’s the “but look at the downgrades” argument again to support the distorted view that only FTTH could possibly be impacted by delays – which ignores the simple fact that almost every FTTN deployment Turnbull has ever pointed at, has suffered at least some delay and issue.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
This review is indeed incredibly important. It will undoubtably define the future direction of the single biggest infrastructure undertaken that has occurred in some time.
But the key point which you ignored is that if Labor had got back in there would be no NBN review of any sort, irrespective of how massive future rollout downgrades or funding increases were from here to completion, to now say you don’t have a problem with such a review and that it is ‘incredibly important’ I assume means you are somewhat relieved that Labor lost.
Reviews are for people who don’t know what is going on, ie Turnbull, the Coalition. I am sure NBNCo and Conroy knew exactly what was happening.
yeah sure they did, three attempts and counting to get the rollout predictions right to the point it was so far out of wack with reality that the actual 2013 figure in the end was a just over a half what they predicted it would be in 2012, that’s defining they ‘knew exactly what was happening’ is it?
Yes, they got the predictions wrong… wow thanks for the scoop.
So now we throw our hands in the air, whilst saying Labor suck as many times as we can and be happy with (nay promote and fluff-up) the same network architecture, using Telstra’s dilapidated copper (thanks JL/iinet) the Coalition opposed 6 years ago?
I suppose at least MT actually has a (FttN) policy now, unlike not so long ago when he said he had a fully costed policy but didn’t…
But of course blatant porkies are ok from MT… but NBNCo missing NBN predictions isn’t to be tolerated.
Which again, I find it rather sickening, having been told by the node nerds upon release of the Corp plan, that it is a document of no consequence, because it is full of ‘estimations’ (well der) which may never be met. But look now, the very same of no consequence estimations are considered paramount estimations and inexcusable if not to met…
I think the word I’m looking for is… hypocrites.
Who is to say that a review may not have occurred in the future? I can’t make that assumption. I know you have, but that just it – an assumption.
Assumptions are a risky proposition. I try to not make them.
NBNco had already reviewed at least one aspect of it’s deployment and decided to take on the NT build itself. So it’s not like they weren’t reacting to changing circumstances, even if the time scale was a bit ridiculous.
As for a full review of the network with a view to rebuild it with copper – what was the point of that? It’s a Coalition choice to potentially rework the network; not Labor.
Rather than making a bunch of assumptions around things that have yet to happen, I’ll prefer to see the outcome of the review, first. And then we’ll see just how ‘agnostic’ the new Minister for Internets actually is.
Also, the assumption that I am ok with a review (given a new government is in charge and stated it would do exactly that before the election) and thus automatically approve of the election outcome?
That’s not a particularly intelligent, or logical observation.
The key point remains, you would have never ever got this under Labor.
‘This review is indeed incredibly important. It will undoubtably define the future direction of the single biggest infrastructure undertaken that has occurred in some time.’
The “key” point? To what door?
“If Labor” blah blah blah.
Labor isn’t in Government right now. Enough “what if”s. Enough misdirection, Fibroid.
I expect you to be as critical about what the Coalition government is doing as you were critical about what the Labor government was doing. Anything less and you’ll confirm what we all already knew.
The key point remains, you would have never ever got this under Labor.
As you’ve pointed out before “I guess we’ll never know now”. I have no problem with the Libs doing the review as long as Malcolm sticks to his word and makes sure it isn’t biased.
Labor held a external consultant review of the NBN in 2009 much in the same manner we will see with the Coalition appointed external consultant strategic review of the NBN in 2014.
This second review has much more history and hindsight information in the period 2009-2013 for them to base their review on, that is the history of the Labor FTTP rollout and the technical progress in both the upgrade path from FTTN to FTTP and technical advancements to the speed of FTTN , it also does not have to factor in the GFC on perceived private partnerships funding problems this time around.
So we won’t be able to determine any bias as such until the results of the review are publicly known and how much of that recommendation content the Coalition and the NBN Co incorporate or ignore as the case maybe into their version of the rollout.
Second review?
Labor did some themselves post-2009 ( http://www.dpmc.gov.au/foi/ips/disclosure_logs/dpmc/docs/2011-12/foi-2011-090.pdf for example). I know you’re no fan of Labor (and lets face it, who really is), but rewriting history isn’t becoming.
As in the primary review that determines what the infrastructure rollout will be, the first review which Labor took on board determined their NBN FTTP model, this second review will dictate (if implemented) the Coalition NBN model.
Oh, I see what you doing, you’re comparing the actual implementation study ( http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/2013/september/national_broadband_network/national_broadband_network_implementation_study ) with Malcolm’s review, and not the actual review they did?
@ Fibroid.
One simple question please.
Did you support FttN when it was Labor policy and the Coalition opposed it, in fact called it fraudband?
Be truthful, if only to yourself.
@tinman_au
‘Oh, I see what you doing, you’re comparing the actual implementation study…..’
No what I’m doing is stating the process of how Labor chose their rollout model with how the Coalition intend to choose their rollout model, both with external consultants after a review process.
As I said before the Coalition review will have the extra input of what hindsight the current rollout brings to the table, obviously many pro Labor NBN supporters here would prefer it didn’t, but that’s the reality of the situation.
The studies are similar:
Labor wanted a study done with FTTN in mind, the study recommended going straight to FTTH.
Liberals want a study done with FTTN as the rollout with and are carefully selecting the terms of reference and the people doing the study to get the result they want.
You are making assumptions on the outcome already, so who else needs to be on the panel to ensure the Labor FTTP rollout continues on untouched?
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/17/nbn-co-wants-consultant-help-strategic-review/#comment-627206
I am not saying put anyone on the panel to make FTTH continue. I am saying that the panel is a rigged panel. Turnbull is stacking the NBN board for the review.
Do you think he isn’t?
But irrespective of the assertion of stacking it’s best to see what the outcome is don’t you think, then if it’s not NBN FTTP untouched from the Labor model you then can accuse them of stacking.
@Alex
‘One simple question please.’
I have already answered that at least three or four times in three years, you really need to update your archive headed ‘My failed attempts to nail Fibroid’ and come up with something a bit more 2013.
You could have just answered, but you chose not to…
So to play your silly game further, since I must have missed your answer’S’ (ahem) what was the answer…?
BTW – I dont have to nail you, because your own, IMO, forever contradictory and always politically motivated rubbish, nails itself, to the disbelief of most here and that’s not conjecture that is fact…
“if it’s not NBN FTTP untouched from the Labor model you then can accuse them of stacking.”
No, I am accusing them of stacking because they are stacking. It has nothing to do with what outcome is produced. I am not a hypocrite. If they had a fair and open review and they decided on FTTN and the reasons were valid, fine. No matter what the outcome here, the board is still stacked with Turnbull’s mates.
No what I’m doing is stating the process of how Labor chose their rollout model with how the Coalition intend to choose their rollout model, both with external consultants after a review process.
No, what you do is answer people with non sequitur answers and obfuscate as much as possible. It’s been very rare that you’ve ever answered me, or a question by me, directly.
But irrespective of the assertion of stacking it’s best to see what the outcome is don’t you think, then if it’s not NBN FTTP untouched from the Labor model you then can accuse them of stacking.
An “assertion” of stacking?
I think it’s pretty obvious that “stacking” is happening http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/21/turnbull-stacks-nbn-review-telstra-cronies/
If he includes input from folks like Sortus, SteveJ, Simon or (dare I say it) Renai, then I’m perfectly willing to retract the claim that he’s not just after “jobs for the boys”.
I have already answered that at least three or four times in three years
Good, you know the feeling then ;o)
But the influence of who is on the strategic review panel won’t be known until we get to see the content of the 2014-2017 Corporate plan due to be presented to Parliament in the first half of next year, and I bet it’s midnight on June 30th 2014.
So for the next eight months the discussion is going to be based on conjecture of that outcome, also I would like to remind you and others there is also the little matter of the content of Coalition Policy.
Coalition Policy has as its goal a mix of FTTP, FTTN, satellite and wireless rollouts, I suppose you expect the Strategic Review to evaluate the Coalition rollout model based on the brief:
“Please tell us how we can get out of our Coalition policy and implement the Labor model”
I dunno, I’ve been watching House Of Lies recently and I don’t think we should be spending taxpayer money on consultants.
Sorry to go off topic, but…
Renai… I think the edit feature is a fantastic addition :)
People had been requesting it for years :)
I don’t see it??? I got the new subscription buttons though
http://brw.com.au/p/tech-gadgets/why_australia_can_replicate_silicon_1HO9plp5JncBM2A2YmgZmI
Wonderful stuff. /sarcasm
> “We are going to offer a free electronic mailbox to all citizens, which will be, if they choose, the destination for all of their government correspondence.”
http://www.zdnet.com/labor-nbn-obsession-crippled-digital-economy-talk-turnbull-7000022008/
Yes, because apparently that is one of the biggest priorities. What else could be expected of someone stuck in a 1996 mindset at best. The whole thing, including this “strategic review” that basically just asks the question “Is VDSL cheaper and easier to roll out?”, and the attitude of “Forget Australia, you should look towards Silicon Valley” has got to be one big giant elaborate joke.
‘The whole thing, including this “strategic review” that basically just asks the question “Is VDSL cheaper and easier to roll out?”’
Well basically it is not just one question based on VDSL and how cheap and easy it is at all.
‘Its primary objective is to evaluate both the: Current NBN operational and financial performance; as well as the timing, financials and product offers under alternative models of delivering very fast broadband to homes and businesses across Australia.”
How do you read into that FTTP is locked out as a option?
I agree with Fibroid here, lets give Malcolm the benefit of doubt. Whose to know, maybe he’ll do the right thing and run with the current NBN, but whip it into shape time frame wise…
Even if FTTP isn’t locked out of the review and different models are compared, then what is going to meet the objective of the review best by some margin? What is going to be cheapest and quickest to roll out?
And the answer is VDSL2.
Seriously, if it looks at FTTP through those two objectives only, the review will find to be hard to deliver and expensive, and the review of the current rollout will back that up. It’s pretty simple really. If you just go with your election slogan to determine the most important infrastructure need for this country for decades to come, an election slogan that didn’t even sell that well at all, then things are pretty simple, really.
@ Fibroid…
“Its primary objective is to evaluate both the: Current NBN operational and financial performance; as well as the timing, financials and product offers under alternative models of delivering very fast broadband to homes and businesses across Australia.” … How do you read into that FTTP is locked out as a option?”
To answer you (you ought to try doing likewise, even once)…
Quite simply because MT will do exactly as you have done and either ignore advice or place in the too hard basket the actual possible, additional potential “B” to the economy, businesses and/or individuals, relating to the added capacity of rolling out FttP compared to FttN.
You know B… that middle letter the node nerds and political crusaders always seem to (as you again did above) ignore when talking about cBa…
I now foresee a nitpicking reply (or typical stunned silence) arguing over semantics of review vs. CBA *sigh*
‘basket the actual possible, additional potential “B” to the economy, businesses and/or individuals, relating to the added capacity of rolling out FttP compared to FttN.’
What is that expressed in dollars?
Exactly, thanks for absolutely proving my point…
umm ok.
What is that expressed in dollars?
Dollars are the only thing in “B” that means anything to you? You don’t see there can be other benefits like quality of life for people?
Ok, so it is bad that Turnbull is going to go down the FTTN route no matter how damaging it is to Australia.
But it makes it even worse that he will blow millions of dollars of tax payer money to try to buy credibility for the FTTN mess.
Credibility for FTTN doesn’t have to be bought, overseas FTTN works fine, it is fast to rollout and delivers revenue streams back to the infrastructure owners and RSP’s faster, but here in this unique part of the world where we are so unlike everyone else it will be a unique mess.
Can you at least admit that “FTTN overseas” is different to “FTTN in Australia”?
The big difference being who owns the copper, and the secondary being the size of gauge used here in metro areas (Telstra actually used a decent gauge (.60mm+) in rural areas, but metro is <.40mm…all the vectoring trials are done with .60mm+).
Address those two points seriously and I'll actually be impressed.
Another difference often not mentioned, these countries with FTTN started rolling them out years ago.
The fact they are still rolling FTTN out in 2013, with plans well into 2014-15 has escaped your attention.
No it hasn’t. Has the fact they STARTED rolling out in 2009 and before escaped yours?
No, also Australian FTTP rollouts started in 2008, I am not sure where you are going with this ‘it was started in…’ argument, unless you are trying to make a point that if FTTN was chosen instead of FTTP by Labor in 2009 most of us would be using it by now.
No, the rollout started in 2011. Limited trials started in 2008.
“I am not sure where you are going with this ‘it was started in…’ argument, unless you are trying to make a point that if FTTN was chosen instead of FTTP by Labor in 2009 most of us would be using it by now”
If FTTN was chosen in 2007, and it was rolled out shortly after, it would have had a useful like. Like the UK and German FTTN will have a useful life. They are already starting to roll out fibre, and are planning how to go from FTTN to FTTH. We have yet to have any rollout of FTTN and it won’t like start until way into 2014. I am saying we missed the boat. It’s too late to roll it out and have it pay for itself. Well it could, if we hobbled Australia’s future data growth needs until it was.
It’s simply old habits die hard mixed with desperate diversion Lionel…
Even our friend can see FttN is complete idiocy, but he has to support it. So to avoid FttN’s obvious flaws the old FttP/NBN chestnuts and FUD keep pitifully flowing…
Even our friend can see FttN is complete idiocy, but he has to support it. So to avoid FttN’s obvious flaws the old FttP/NBN chestnuts and FUD keep pitifully flowing…
FTTN/FTTB is not complete idiocy, it has it’s place. It just need to be used to address specific issues, not as a “whole of solution” answer.
@Lionel
‘No, the rollout started in 2011. Limited trials started in 2008.’
I was referring to FTTP rollouts like those started by the Telstra Velocity program followed soon after by Opticomm and others FTTP deployments, the Labor NBN Co didn’t start FTTP rollouts in Australia, nor will it finish them.
‘Like the UK and German FTTN will have a useful life.’
Must have plenty of useful life left in it then, FTTN is still being rolled out in 2013, I assume BT for one know more than you about ROI on new infrastructure deployment.
‘They are already starting to roll out fibre, and are planning how to go from FTTN to FTTH.’
Like the Coalition Policy you mean?
‘It’s too late to roll it out and have it pay for itself.’
It’s not too late, far from it, just because the FTTN rollout has not started yet doesn’t therefore mean it will not pay for itself, just for the one reason it can be rolled out faster, and that means revenue flows earlier than from FTTP.
‘Well it could, if we hobbled Australia’s future data growth needs until it was.’
But there is no hobbling Australia’s future data growth on a infrastructure that has failed the rollout standards it set itself on a ‘promise’ that it will all be done by 2021, despite missing rollout targets by substantial margins each and every reporting period since Day 1?
It’s not too late, far from it, just because the FTTN rollout has not started yet doesn’t therefore mean it will not pay for itself,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network#Broadband_Advisory_Group_2003
Ten years late, but better late than never, hey?
Indeed.
@tinman-au
As you are the one virtually solo pushing the copper gauge argument over and over what would be really impressive is if you could translate that into some sort deal breaker argument for FTTN, specifically.
1. What percentage of the Telstra copper is of the smaller gauge?
2. How does this directly effect FTTN speeds, are all FTTN speeds subject to speed degradation directly related to the smaller gauge?
3. You mentioned the thicker gauge being used in regional/ rural areas , so what are the stats on FTTN speeds at the same distance from the cabinet between the different gauges, stats to prove that the thinner gauge speed is so bad you might as well rollout FTTP for example?
4. FTTN rollouts overseas are successful so by your reasoning I assume they are all on the thicker gauge, and if so how do you know this, and how do you know that not one FTTN rollout overseas uses the thinner gauge?
5. Why do you know about the ‘gauge problem’ but Telstra has not mentioned it as being a deal breaker for a proposed Coalition FTTN rollout, where their policy is quite specific on minimum speeds?
“As you are the one virtually solo pushing the copper gauge argument over and over what would be really impressive is if you could translate that into some sort deal breaker argument for FTTN, specifically”
Not, really, guage is very important. Seems the only thing left in the whole technology debate is replying to trolls, and since their major motivation is political, tech desn’t come into the discussion much.
“1. What percentage of the Telstra copper is of the smaller gauge?”
All of it bar some long reach stuff in the country. It is all smaller guage, some is even aluminium.
“2. How does this directly effect FTTN speeds, are all FTTN speeds subject to speed degradation directly related to the smaller gauge?”
It is not a linear progression. Go from 24 gauge to 26 guage lose about a 1/4 to a 1/3 speed. A little change in guage makes a big difference.
“3. You mentioned the thicker gauge being used in regional/ rural areas , so what are the stats on FTTN speeds at the same distance from the cabinet between the different gauges, stats to prove that the thinner gauge speed is so bad you might as well rollout FTTP for example?”
There are no stats for a lot of copper in Australia. Turnbull saying the standard guage for copper in Australia is the same as overseas is deceptive. We increased our standard a few years ago and they dropped theirs.
“4. FTTN rollouts overseas are successful so by your reasoning I assume they are all on the thicker gauge, and if so how do you know this, and how do you know that not one FTTN rollout overseas uses the thinner gauge?”
Because he can read.
“5. Why do you know about the ‘gauge problem’ but Telstra has not mentioned it as being a deal breaker for a proposed Coalition FTTN rollout, where their policy is quite specific on minimum speeds”
If you can’t answer this one yourself, seek help.
@Lionel
‘Not, really, guage is very important. Seems the only thing left in the whole technology debate is replying to trolls, and since their major motivation is political, tech desn’t come into the discussion much.’
Putting aside the rubbish about trolls as a diversion in response to a direct technical question, the tech answer still goes begging I see.
‘It is not a linear progression. Go from 24 gauge to 26 guage lose about a 1/4 to a 1/3 speed. A little change in guage makes a big difference.’
Is this a guess, or is there some study you could link to that shows how this works, and more importantly why the Australia unique ‘gauge problem’ means we can forget FTTN for Australia?
‘There are no stats for a lot of copper in Australia. Turnbull saying the standard guage for copper in Australia is the same as overseas is deceptive. We increased our standard a few years ago and they dropped theirs.’
err, so does this mean our increased copper standard is actually better for FTTN relative to overseas?
‘Because he can read.’
Read what? – which is the crux of any answer with supporting evidence.
‘If you can’t answer this one yourself, seek help.’
No I can’t answer that one that’s why I asked the question, it seems you cannot either and need to resort to making a personal attack in the absence of a proper response.
“Putting aside the rubbish about trolls as a diversion in response to a direct technical question, the tech answer still goes begging I see.”
If you want the tech answer go study it yourself, like many mentioning guage have. I have no idea what your level of technical competence is, so I have no idea how to explain it to you.
The answer I can give you is a slight copper gauge reduction results in a large speed reduction. Like it or lump it, I am not going to go through years of electronics theory. If you want the technical reason, educate yourself.
“Is this a guess, or is there some study you could link to that shows how this works, and more importantly why the Australia unique ‘gauge problem’ means we can forget FTTN for Australia?”
There are lots of articles and white papers on how gauge changes speeds. Find them yourself.
Australia has run thinner copper than other countries. I didn’t say the guage was the reason to forget FTTN, there are lots of reason to skip FTTN. Reducing it to simply guage is to simplistic. The overall reason I think it should be skipped, in simple terms, is too little, too late, to the point of being a short term waste of money.
“err, so does this mean our increased copper standard is actually better for FTTN relative to overseas?”
No our new standard is the same. It’s not what the copper in the ground IS, it’s what it what it would be if it was rolled out in the last couple of years.
“Read what? – which is the crux of any answer with supporting evidence.”
No time to waste on looking up stuff for you.
As to why Telstra hasn’t said anything about copper performance, really? Come on. They have said it in the past. They said they weren’t interested in VDSL on copper, it was a waste of money, they would go straight to fibre. Now they are not say that. You wonder why? MONEY.
‘ I didn’t say the guage was the reason to forget FTTN, there are lots of reason to skip FTTN. Reducing it to simply guage is to simplistic.’
Well with that I agree with you on the simplistic argument, except I don’t keep bringing the subject of gauge up, you have stepped into the void trying to help tinman out of whom I directed the questions originally , he’s probably happy you gave at least gave it a shot on his behalf.
Also I don’t know why he keeps bringing the subject of copper gauge up all the time unless he has direct evidence it is a FTTN deal breaker for Australia, if not what is the point?
‘No our new standard is the same. It’s not what the copper in the ground IS, it’s what it what it would be if it was rolled out in the last couple of years.’
Sorry I don’t know what you mean, you called it a ‘new standard’ so what you are now saying it is not new but the same as the previous old standard is that correct? and if it was rolled out in the last couple of years what significance is that for FTTN speeds?
‘No time to waste on looking up stuff for you.’
oh ok
‘ They said they weren’t interested in VDSL on copper, it was a waste of money, they would go straight to fibre.’
They did, where?
The change in standard:
The standard for both UK and Australian copper IS NOW 0.4mm
When the majority of the copper was rolled out the UK standard was 0.5mm
and the Australian standard was 0.4mm, but some was as small is 0.3mm, some was aluminium, saying the Australia copper standard is now the same is meaningless, because it wasn’t when it was rolled out.
Here is a document comparing VDSL on 26awg (0.4) and 24awg (0.5) copper. The problem with VDSL2 is even worse, as it uses higher frequencies. The higher the frequencies, the more attenuation on the copper. http://www.ti.com/sc/docs/products/network/vdslwp.pdf
Now say at 500m the attenuating is 50 vs 40 db, and that’s with VDSL, doesn’t sound that bad, but that is about 8 times less signal being received. db is log.
As to when Telstra said they weren’t interested in VDSL, it was years ago, I have no ready link available to it. Try google.
The gauges are .40 and .62. Telstra used .40 in metro areas and .62 in rural (the .62 can carry the signal further). They did this because the .62 is ~twice the weight/price. All the lab stuff you see on vectoring etc are done on larger gauge copper. the narrower gauge can still carry the signal, but needs shorter runs.
Read the links I posted here: http://delimiter.com.au/2013/10/17/nbn-co-wants-consultant-help-strategic-review/#comment-627312 , all the explanations (and more importantly, data) are in them.
There were runs done in cities with smaller than 0.4mm copper and some done using aluminium.
There were runs done in cities with smaller than 0.4mm copper and some done using aluminium.
Indeed Lionel, they went down to .30 (and some were tin, not just aluminium). Please Fib, seriously take a look at things outside of MSM (which I would think your willing to do, considering you frequent non Main Stream Media like Delimiter).
Is this a guess, or is there some study you could link to that shows how this works, and more importantly why the Australia unique ‘gauge problem’ means we can forget FTTN for Australia?
Ignorance is bliss I guess, you could easily do a Google search and answer things like that yourself mate. FTTN (or specifically, FTTB) shouldn’t be forgotten, just used where it most makes sense.
As you are the one virtually solo pushing the copper gauge argument over and over what would be really impressive is if you could translate that into some sort deal breaker argument for FTTN, specifically.
The only one? Seriously? I’ve seen it mentioned here many times before, and I’ve posted links to several articles about it. If you really are interested in learning more about it, here’s some more links for you:
http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/more-evidence-that-turnbull-cant-deliver-on-25mbps-minimum/
http://www.sortius-is-a-geek.com/its-all-about-the-dbms/
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/telstra-still-deciding-fate-of-copper-post-nbn-rollout-20120508-1ya5s.html
http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=812449&nodeId=8b95bf704cfc3eedff2347a7c30a3928&fn=ULLS+Undertaking++-+Engineering+rules.pdf
Most of your questions (and probably your follow up ones) are all answered in one of those links.
And I never said it was a deal breaker, just that it could work out being a more expensive option in the long run for Australia (I’m not one of the ones saying “FTTN can’t be done in Australia”, my stance is that it shouldn’t be done, mostly due to cost and lost/delayed opportunity).
Well thanks for all of that, it just shows that Australia has a mix of gauge types even on the single run to the residence and parts of it are aluminum just like the UK and I guess most parts of the world, despite that BT for one decided to go ahead with a mixed rollout of FTTN and FTTP anyway, so the mix of gauge types was not a deal breaker to the point where FTTP was the only option.
The review and especially Telstra’s technical input to that review about their infrastructure knowing what the minimum speed standards are will dictate if the gauge types are significant enough with other factors to nail FTTN as a option.
‘Australia has a mix of gauge types even on the single run to the residence and parts of it are aluminum just like the UK and I guess most parts of the world,”
Sorry, have you got a link for that? Is aluminium (sic) better than copper?
I have got a link that aluminum is used in the UK?
‘Those cabinets connect to homes and businesses via existing copper and aluminium wiring that is tied to the firm’s fibre-optic cables.’
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/bt_fibre_exchange_rollout_plus_fttp_on_demand/
Secondly I didn’t make any assertion that aluminum was better than copper.
Secondly I didn’t make any assertion that aluminium was better than copper.
True, I’ve never seen you say that ;o)
While there still may be aluminium (and tin) wires around, I’m pretty sure they’ve ditched the iron ones :o)
http://michaelwyres.com/2013/06/albanese-shafts-the-iron-wires/
Well thanks for all of that, it just shows that Australia has a mix of gauge types even on the single run to the residence and parts of it are aluminum just like the UK and I guess most parts of the world, despite that BT for one decided to go ahead with a mixed rollout of FTTN and FTTP anyway, so the mix of gauge types was not a deal breaker to the point where FTTP was the only option.
The review and especially Telstra’s technical input to that review about their infrastructure knowing what the minimum speed standards are will dictate if the gauge types are significant enough with other factors to nail FTTN as a option.
No worries, I’d rather post links and let folks educate themselve rather than lecture then on “this is how it should be”. The UK is a little different to Aus as they had to replace a lot of the lines after WWII, and they have much less distance to cover, so using better thickness copper is a no brainer for them. I don’t blame Telstra (or actually the PMG) for saving money and using cheaper wire, they needed something like 156,000Klm of wire to cover Aus. At almost half the cost, .40 (and .30) probably made a lot of sense to use where it made sense to do so.
It’s not black and white, but after all the reading I’ve done, I still think Michael Berry has the right idea (mostly FTTP, but FTTN/FTTB where it makes sense to do so, AND it’s economically smart.
‘I still think Michael Berry has the right idea (mostly FTTP, but FTTN/FTTB where it makes sense to do so, AND it’s economically smart.’
I don’t know who he is but I agree with that, I have always said and state again the FTTP mix will be higher than what the Coalition policy states, even for the sole reason the review process will take so bloody long as the FTTP rollout continues on.
The Coalition can always brag later how they put the (Labor) NBN back on track!
:)
Have a read of this and see what you think:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/15/fttn-or-fttp-the-nbns-future-should-be-hybrid/
Yet again I agree with you (gee this is becoming a habit). Although you will note I only agree for all the reasons you conveniently ignore…
Being so, yes I agree we are unique…
Elsewhere they have started FttN and realised err, dumb move and as a consequence progressed to FttP. We are uniquely, going backwards and regressing from FttP to FttN…
And some actually cheer :/
It seems unnecessary to me.
Surely the people at NBNCo have the necessary knowledge to do this.
I can understand the appointment of the ex Telstra exec to assist Ziggy, that makes sense to me.
(off-topic: Renai, there was an article recently on an alternative FTTN being discussed on whirlpool http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2167015, I think it might make an interesting article for Delimiter)
Comments are closed.